[1985] KEHC 53 (KLR)
The appellant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty after the facts constituting the offence were narrated to the court and accepted by the appellant as correct and true. The sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. There was no miscarriage...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1985] KEHC 53 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Said; Respondent: Republic
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 955 of 1984
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Burglary, Plea of Guilty, Sentencing, Concurrent Sentences
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Said
Appellant
Republic
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty.
- 2 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty after the facts constituting the offence were narrated to the court and accepted by the appellant as correct and true. The sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate, and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. There was no miscarriage of justice or error in the proceedings of the lower court. Accordingly, the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed in its entirety.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
7 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
Said v RepublicHigh Court at Machakos April 1985O’Kubasu JCriminal Appeal No 955 of 1984(Appeal from the Resident Magistrate’s court at Kitui, K D Kibanga Esq)
Advocates Appellant absent unrepresented and not wishing to be present Miss C Nyagah for respondent
April 1985, O’Kubasu J delivered the following Judgment.
The appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of burglary and stealing contrary to Sections 304(2) and 279(b) of the Penal Code (cap 63). He was sentenced to three years imprisonment with two strokes of the cane on the first limb of the charge and two years imprisonment with one stroke on the second limb of the charge. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
I have perused the record of the lower court and it is clear that he appellant was properly convicted on his own plea of guilty. The facts constituting the offence were narrated to the court and the appellant accepted them as correct and true. The sentence imposed was appropriate. Hence I order that this appeal be dismissed in its entirety.
Order accordingly.